Not really because the two engines fitted had about the same swept volume. The P-51 required about 65lbs of ballast in the rear (IIRC) a whirlwind would need hundreds, its been discussed on a few threads here.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not really because the two engines fitted had about the same swept volume. The P-51 required about 65lbs of ballast in the rear (IIRC) a whirlwind would need hundreds, its been discussed on a few threads here.Couldn't you say the same thing about putting a Merlin 60 on a P-51A? Or a V-1710 into a P-36?
Yes, so you could fit the, but fuel consumption goes up as does take off and landing speeds, and I guess you couldn't carry either drop tanks or bombs without re-stressing the air frame, so better to put the Merlins in the Gloster twin. Hell no, go with the Mosquito.Much more of a size/weight difference between a Peregrine and Merlin than an Allison and Merlin.
Seems like so often actual history points to the best answer.Hell no, go with the Mosquito.
So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.
True but if my supposition is correct that the production to victory ratio is only useful in one direction i.e. it points to a good design if it is positive( because regardless of having the opportunity you still have to shoot down the enemy)but doesn't nescesarily point to a poor design if it's negative( or lesser than other fighters) because of the possibility of a multitude of mitigating factors like mission type or environment being present.In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.
So you want to pretend the Zero and the Typhoon are equivalent? Or the Zero and the Bf109 G or FW190? Seriously!?!?! We're back to the "the Brewster Buffalo shot down some Zeros over Malaya, so it must be better than a Corsair" level of argument, I see.…..AVG pilot Erik Shilling was a well known advocate for the P-40. Some of his comments included "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable. " and "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero."
So, how many of those Japs were flying FW190s? Your "ignore the apples, look how many oranges I can juggle" comparison is enthusiastic but futile."[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms...."
You can selectively post plenty more quotes that in no way at all show the P-40F as being comparable to the Typhoon. Every single one of the pilots you mentioned went on to happily replace their P-40s (and most of them did NOT fly the P-40F) with better aircraft, including - drumroll! - the Typhoon!I can post plenty more examples if needed.
I will give you that, numbers varied from a high of 72 to a low considerably below that at times. The 33rd fighter group was supposed to reinforce the 57th in Egypt but got grabbed for Torch.Your timeline is a bit off there. P-40F was in combat before Torch. Elements of the 57th FG were in action in July 1942 (embedded with RAF squadrons), with two complete squadrons operational in August and all three by October as an independent fighter group. RAF 260 had Kittyhawk II from Feb 42, and RAAF 3 from Sept 42.
Well I'm not sure what you mean, they certainly had a need for fighters. And the theory was that the P-40s would be doing more fighter bomber missions since DAF had already demonstrated their utility for that purpose. The theoretically more advanced P-39 and the categorically more advanced and higher flying P-38 were supposed to do most of the Air Superiority work. However the writing was already on the wall for the P-39s so plans started to change, and once introduced to combat in the Med they proved incapable of holding their own and had to be withdrawn from frontline missions. The P-38s did a lot better but they too proved to have some limitations, so the P-40F was put back into the fighter role by Dec 42 by which time no less than three US fighter groups (33rd, 79th, and 57th) were partly or fully operational with them, along with the two RAF squadrons.
The P-40Ks only saw limited use in the Med, when 57th FG briefly ran out of P-40F/Ls one squadron was replaced with that type, of which they went through about 100 from what I understand. The RAF also got ~100 of them, which they liked a lot, but mostly got the P-40M instead which was definitely more suitable for fighter bomber missions and was generally used for that purpose. As was the P-40K for that matter in this Theater. As far as I know the US didn't use any P-40M in the Med, they were supposed to be for export only but they ended up with some in the Pacific and CBI.
I think they tried to make it as capable as they could, and it seems anecdotally that only by doing the field stripping, i.e. taking out the two guns and forward fuel tank, did the P-40F become considered to be suitable for fighting Bf 109s, and then just barely. But most of the units were intended for fighter bomber missions since that was the main mission of the DAF, and that is indeed what most of them did. The lack of suitable cover meant that they were first pressed into service as escorts for other P-40 units, and then as they seemed to be serviceable for that mission they were increasingly used as escorts for medium bombers, until in 1943 one of the newly arriving fighter groups, the 325th was officially assigned as an escort squadron to a B-26 bomber group which ended up operating a lot over Pantelleria, Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy.
What, more selective quotes? Why not consider WHAT YOUR OWN TEST PILOTS SAID. Please try not to cry into your Wheatos at section h, according to USAAF test pilots:
So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.
What, more selective quotes? Why not consider WHAT YOUR OWN TEST PILOTS SAID. Please try not to cry into your Wheatos at section h, according to USAAF test pilots:
h. Maneuverability and Aerobatics
In general, handling during maneuvers and in aerobatics is very good. radius of turn is short, and the airplane rolls well....
Which completely destroys the unsupported male bovine manure you have been pushing about the Typhoon having either a poor turn or roll.
I will give you that, numbers varied from a high of 72 to a low considerably below that at times. The 33rd fighter group was supposed to reinforce the 57th in Egypt but got grabbed for Torch.
Demonstrating a utility isn't quite the same as fielding a new engine in a fighter with much enhanced altitude performance and yet using it for the same old tasks.
There was no " theoretically more advanced P-39 " in mid to late 1942. Most people involved with planning Torch and the subsequent campaigns should have already known that the P-39 was NOT a fighter in the NA/European theaters. It was having trouble with the Japanese fighters in New Guinea and the South Pacific. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Well, if the Allison P-40 was intended to be a fighter bomber in mid 1942 they screwed up putting in the -81 and later engines. Losing almost 10% of your take-off power doesn't sound like good planning to meNot to mention cutting the WEP rating from 60in to 57in. The -81 engines did improve performance at altitudes higher than around 5,000ft though. Fighter bomber for use in mountains?
And here you have put your finger on one of the differences between the operational history/use of the P-40F and the Typhoon. The Typhoon only occasionally was used as an escort and for a good part of it's career it was the aircraft being escorted. Conditions and operations changed but for a good number of Typhoon missions if the German fighters got in gun range of the Typhoons the Spitfires had screwed up.
I would also note that trying to compare a stripped P-40F or L shows just how far off the P-40 was. Not six guns but four .50s with how much ammo? AHT shows 235 rounds per gun for an L. Typhoon is carrying 140 shells for each of it's four 20mm guns. Taking out the forward wing tank leaves you with about 20% more fuel than a Spitfire rather than the almost 60% more fuel you have with the forward tank. Typhoon has about 50% more internal fuel than the P-40L with two internal tanks. Yes the Typhoon is larger and heavier but with that forward tank missing the Typhoon, at most economical speed at 15,000ft has about 50-60 miles more range than the P-40L going just about the same speed.
The P-40L or stripped P-40F seemed to have limited range, but I guess that 20% made a difference. I believe they only did it when the air to air combat was intense, because you see a lot of these planes with the six guns in them too. How much fuel is needed even with the tanks in of course depends on the mission. Somehow they seem to have been flying P-40Ls on missions halfway across the Med. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
My metric was 260 victories to 1100 fighter Typhoons produced, the other 2200 aren't counted, although I guess the 1100 combat losses could be assigned to the attack versions. So 50% loss rates? Well, not that bad, 75% could pretty much expect to get back after an attack.So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.
IMy metric was 260 victories to 1100 fighter Typhoons produced, the other 2200 aren't counted, although I guess the 1100 combat losses could be assigned to the attack versions. So 50% loss rates? Well, not that bad, 75% could pretty much expect to get back after an attack.
I
I am not sure how you figured the the bolded part. The Typhoon did see a lot of lossed but they also flew a lot of missions.
from : Hawker Typhoon
Your sources may vary.
" Day and night the increasing number of Typhoon squadrons launched attacks on the German transport system in occupied France, becoming adept at destroying railway trains. This was a dangerous duty, operating at low level against defended targets, and 380 Typhoons were lost during 1943 (many to flak)"
and
"The main danger to the low flying Typhoons was posed by anti-aircraft fire, not enemy aircraft. Between D-Day and the end of the war in Europe some 500 Typhoons were lost in action. During this period the rocket armed Typhoons destroyed countless German tanks, firing just under 200,000 rockets in action. "
Which is 25,000 missions at eight rockets per mission for a loss rate of one airplane every 50 missions and we did not count any missions where the payload was bombs or where drop tanks were used and/or no underwing ordnance.
combat losses per number of planes built is a nearly useless metric as it leaves out the number of missions/sorties flown. It may tell you if a plane was heavily used or not (Brewster Buccaneer suffered few if any combat losses for instance) but it certainly doesn't give you any meaningful measure of a planes combat survivability.
Many Typhoons flew 3 and 4 combat missions per day in NW Europe after D-day.
I really get tired of constantly reading on these forums that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 as clearly it wasn't.
As for being a useless metric, to me, it does make more sense than the American ones, like the Corsair's 19:1 victory ratio